New Democrats try to redefine ‘moderate’

The obituary of moderates in Congress has been written a million times: Middle-of-the-road Republicans are almost extinct; Blue Dogs are losing in droves; the institution is stuck in ideological gridlock.

And that all appears true. Enter the New Democrat Coalition, a group of House Democrats trying to redefine what it means to be a moderate in a hyper-polarized environment. It’s someone, based on the group’s profile, who can embrace cap and trade and the health care overhaul and at the same time call for more free trade and corporate tax rate cuts.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Now, the so-called New Dems — whose politics range roughly from far left to slightly left of center — are gunning for a host of battleground seats in suburban America that could tip the House back to their party this fall.

“When we win back the House, it is going to be because of the linchpin, which is the New Democrat Coalition,” said the group’s chairman, New York Rep. Joe Crowley. “That is going to be the focus of the appeal — not only to Democrats but to independent voters.”

The New Dems’ formula for survival in an increasingly polarized Capitol Hill: tack left on social issues but veer toward the center on business- and economic-oriented policies that could appeal to independent and moderate voters.

But defining the group’s ideological moorings is a tricky exercise.

Though the New Dems proudly tout their centrist label, six of its 42 members also belong to the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus — Reps. Karen Bass and Laura Richardson of California, Andre Carson of Indiana, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Jim Moran of Virginia and Jared Polis of Colorado.

And all but three of current New Dems voted for the health care law in 2010. By contrast, nearly half of the more conservative Blue Dog Coalition’s current 25 members rejected the sweeping overhaul and distinguished themselves from the broader Democratic Party. A similar dynamic played out with the cap-and-trade vote in June 2009, when all but three New Dems backed the climate bill while 10 of the current Blue Dogs opposed it.

That’s not to say New Dems haven’t bucked their party on occasion. They enthusiastically supported the free-trade agreements last fall, although a vast majority of House Democrats opposed the deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. The group also withheld support for their party’s financial reform bill in 2010 until sections were rewritten to make it more palatable to them.

They also want to make comprehensive tax reform a marquee issue — outlining in a policy paper their broad objectives for simplifying the Tax Code, particularly lowering the marginal corporate tax rate.

“Obviously, we’re going to have a very diverse national party,” said Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), a vice chairman for the New Dems. “But I also feel that the New Dems are providing a path forward to where the American people are and what they would like to see us working on.”

“They’re nonideological in that they have Blue Dogs and progressives, as well as members who aren’t in any of those other caucuses,” added Polis. “I think it runs the gamut [from] left to middle to right.”

Still, the group’s diverse ideological makeup invites criticism that New Dems are more interested in branding themselves as moderates among voters than actually legislating like moderates.

Readers' Comments (46)

Who is Charlie Stenholm? And what planet is he living on? Did anyone remind that fossil that ObamaCare is pretty much the same as RomneyCare? And was first conceived by the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to HillaryCare(anyone remember that?).

They should instead, try to define "stupid". That way, they could explain how spending like a drunken sailor leads to prosperity.

Hell, they might even be able to explain the term "fair" as it relates to "taxes", which 47% of Americans do NOT pay, yet expect others to increase their contribution thereof.

And, if they get that down, they can then explain how, even with an expropriation and conversion into cash of the entire wealth and holdings of the four hundred wealthiest Americans, WILL NOT EVEN COVER THE FEDERAL DEFICIT FOR A SINGLE YEAR!!!

And, then they move on to explaining all of B. Hussein Obama's lies, the DoJ's active criminal conspiracies to engage in arms smuggling, which have already resulted in hundreds of murders, the tens of billions urinated down the drain on 'green energy', and a host of other issues.

Zell Miller was correct. The Democrats are a national party no more. They do not tolerate dissent and are anti-business, anti-work, and want a country where everything is illegal except for what is deemed permissible by federal bureacracies which they control in Washington, D.C. In short, Democrats want a U.S. that looks like a much larger version of a combination of Venezuela and Argentina.

The Democratic party has drifted so far to the left that they now consider ideas straight out of "The Communist Manifesto" as being "moderate" positions.

If you compare the positions of the two parties today to their positions fifty years ago, it is shocking how far to the radical left the Democratic party is today. Fifty years ago they weuld never have endorsed a group of anarchists "occupying" private property.

Democrats are doing what they did in 2010- hijacking the word 'moderate.' And just like in 2010, it won't work. The fact is that Democrats will not win back the House because they need to win seats in conservative districts and they're up against conservative Republicans. It goes to show how desperate they've gotten and how grim they must feel about their prospects. You cannot be a moderate and have Pelosi as your leader.

mtorrey wrote (post #7) - You cannot be a moderate and have Pelosi as your leader.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop...and it'll probably have something to do with either Rep. Boehner, the current Speaker of the House; Sen. McConnell, the current Senate Minority Leader; or former Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican candidate for the office of the President of the United States...

Yep, the Dems have moved over into Marxism and call anything a hair less "moderate." They need to take their views and go to another country, like say Cuba, and spout them there. They no longer represent working people, but rather do everything they can to hurt working people and nurture the underclass that chooses not to work. Take that out to its logical conclusion and what do you have? Nothing. It makes absolutely no sense.

As I see it, this is akin to the proverbial ill-fit square peg in a round hole. Because Leftists find the physical constraints of that proverbial mortise and tenon to be most inconvenient for their peculiar ideology, they therefore attempt to "redefine" square.

They cut off a corner here, and trim an edge there. And soon enough after such redefining...voila! The square is made round! Selah!

Unfortunately, while this willful deception might suit Hollywood, I would counsel that if you are to build a nation, a society, a future...the use of such a surreal redefined "square" as a cornerstone, or in joinery, is flat out a prescription for the collapse of the entire construction.

That I know of, there is not a swinging Leftist that's ever been born who can, in actual reality beyond Hollywood, "redefine" the laws of physics in this manner...not even if they refuse to give up their miscreant attempts to "redefine" the laws of nature and procreation.

Squares "made round" by such redefinition are useless for cornerstones...exemplifying only that you Left-wing extremist "interior decorators" reject a true cornerstone in favor of your cheap chintz. Unfortunately, your counterfeit substitute places this entire nation at peril (and anyone else who accepts your shoddy social engineering and "redefining").

The suburbs are the new home of poverty. As the 'job creator' class gets record profits and record low taxes, the regular people in America see all their jobs go overseas, while the 'job creators' claim it's government's fault. Taxing the rich properly would force them to spend money on wages and hiring and building to avoid paying taxes, which they hate. But instead, Americans keep voting to help the rich and keep the layoffs going.

Go ahead, vote for the hundred millionaire to run our country and keep wondering where all the jobs went. Unemployment raged under Bush, too, and the Republicans own this economy. The Titanic didn't sink in a minute, and this economy didn't die in a couple months, let's not be naive. It's a policy problem, and the millionaires are steering policy for their own benefit, not their nation's. They think they work a thousand times harder than you do, so they shouldn't help you at all. The lazy rich.

"Go ahead, vote for the hundred millionaire to run our country and keep wondering where all the jobs went"

You refer to Obama by this, do you not?

As for your continued "It's all Bush's fault", no adult with whom I am conversant would accept (after a near four year dismal failure by extremist Left partisans in the Obama personality cult) that this cult is somehow absolved of all responsibility for their own reckless actions and inept policies.

But then, you did mention yourself as being naive...a doxolgy of dolts.